17086 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64 / Monday, April 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0276; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–144–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet 

Series 100 & 440) Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above that would 

supersede an existing AD. This 

proposed AD results from mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI) originated by an aviation 

authority of another country to identify 

and correct an unsafe condition on an 

aviation product. The MCAI describes 

the unsafe condition as: Three cases of 

in-flight loss of cabin pressurization 

have been reported, resulting from 

failure of a bulkhead check valve in 

combination with failure of an air 

supply duct. In addition to mandating 

inspection, rework and/or replacement 

of the air supply ducts, Airworthiness 

Directive (AD) CF–2003–05 

(subsequently revised to CF–2003– 

05R1) [which corresponds to FAA AD 

2004–22–08] mandated the 

incorporation of a 4000 flight-hour 

repetitive inspection task for bulkhead 

check valves, Part Numbers (P/N) 

92E20–3 and 92E20–4, into the 

approved maintenance schedule. 

However, this repetitive inspection task 

has since been superseded by a 3000 

flight-hour periodic discard task for 

these bulkhead check valves. This 

directive mandates revision of the 

approved maintenance schedule to 

incorporate the discard task for 

bulkhead check valves, P/N 92E20–3 

and 92E20–4, and supersedes the 

instructions in Corrective Actions, Part 

A, of AD CF–2003–05R1, dated 7 

February 2006. The proposed AD would 

require actions that are intended to 

address the unsafe condition described 

in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 20, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, 

Inc., 400 Coˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 

514–855–5000; fax 514 855–7401; email thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; 

Internet http://www.bombardier.com. 

You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Alfano, Airframe and 

Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, 

FAA, New York Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, 

Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; 

telephone (516) 228–7340; fax (516) 

794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0276; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–144–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We have lengthened the 30-day 

comment period for proposed ADs that 

address MCAI originated by aviation 

authorities of other countries to provide 

adequate time for interested parties to 

submit comments. The comment period 

for these proposed ADs is now typically 

45 days, which is consistent with the 

comment period for domestic transport 

ADs. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On October 18, 2004, we issued AD 

2004–22–08, Amendment 39–13836 (69 

FR 62807, October 28, 2004). That AD 

required actions intended to address an 

unsafe condition on the products listed 

above. 

Since we issued AD 2004–22–08, 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2009–31, 

dated July 8, 2009 (referred to after this 

as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

Three cases of in-flight loss of cabin 

pressurization have been reported, resulting 

from failure of a bulkhead check valve in 

combination with failure of an air supply 

duct. 

In addition to mandating inspection, 

rework and/or replacement of the air supply 

ducts, Airworthiness Directive (AD) CF– 

2003–05 (subsequently revised to CF–2003– 

05R1) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2004– 

22–08] mandated the incorporation of a 4000 

flight-hour repetitive inspection task for 

bulkhead check valves, Part Numbers (P/N) 

92E20–3 and 92E20–4, into the approved 

maintenance schedule. However, this 

repetitive inspection task has since been 

superseded by a 3000 flight-hour periodic 

discard task for these bulkhead check valves. 

This directive mandates revision of the 

approved maintenance schedule to 

incorporate the discard task for bulkhead 

check valves, P/N 92E20–3 and 92E20–4, and 

supersedes the instructions in Corrective 

Actions, Part A, of AD CF–2003–05R1, dated 

7 February 2006. 

You may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Bombardier has issued Temporary 

Revision (TR) 1–2–39, dated December 

12, 2008, to Section 2—Systems and 

Powerplant Program, of Part 1 of the 

Bombardier CL–600–2B19 Maintenance 

Requirements Manual (MRM) CSP 

A–053. The actions described in this 

service information are intended to 

correct the unsafe condition identified 

in the MCAI. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64 / Monday, April 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17087 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, we have been notified 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all pertinent 

information and determined an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

We might also have proposed 

different actions in this AD from those 

in the MCAI in order to follow FAA 

policies. Any such differences are 

highlighted in a Note within the 

proposed AD. 

Changes to Existing AD 

This proposed AD would retain 

certain requirements of AD 2004–22–08. 

Since AD 2004–22–08 was issued, the 

AD format has been revised, and certain 

paragraphs have been rearranged. As a 

result, the corresponding paragraph 

identifiers have changed in this 

proposed AD, as listed in the following 

table: 

REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS

Requirement in 

AD 2004–22–08 

Corresponding 

requirement in this 

proposed AD 

paragraph (a) paragraph (g) 

paragraph (b) paragraph (h) 

paragraph (c) paragraph (i) 

We have removed the service bulletin 

definition paragraph from the restated 

requirements of AD 2004–22–08. (That 

paragraph was identified as paragraph 

(a)(1) in AD 2004–22–08.) Instead, we 

have provided the full service bulletin 

citations throughout this NPRM. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 644 products of U.S. 

registry. 

The actions that are required by AD 

2004–22–08 and retained in this 

proposed AD take about 15 work-hours 

per product, at an average labor rate of 

$85 per work hour. Required parts cost 

about $0 per product. Based on these 

figures, the estimated cost of the 

currently required actions is $1,869 per 

product. 

We estimate that it would take about 

1 work-hour per product to comply with 

the new requirement to revise the ALI. 

The average labor rate is $85 per workhour. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of this requirement of 

the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$54,740, or $85 per product. 

We estimate that it would take about 

5 work-hours per product to comply 

with the new inspection requirement. 

The average labor rate is $85 per workhour. Required parts would cost about 

$594 per product, per replacement 

cycle. Where the service information 

lists required parts costs that are 

covered under warranty, we have 

assumed that there will be no charge for 

these costs. As we do not control 

warranty coverage for affected parties, 

some parties may incur costs higher 

than estimated here. Based on these 

figures, we estimate the cost of the 

inspection requirements of the proposed 

AD on U.S. operators to be $656,236, or 

$1,019 per product, per replacement 

cycle. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Amendment 39–13836 (69 FR 

62807, October 28, 2004) and adding the 

following new AD: 

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2010– 

0276; Directorate Identifier 2009–NM– 

144–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by May 20, 

2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2004–22–08, 

Amendment 39–13836. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc. 

Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 

& 440) airplanes, serial numbers 7003 and 

subsequent, certificated in any category. 

Note 1: This AD requires revisions to 

certain operator maintenance documents to 

include new inspections. Compliance with 

these inspections is required by 14 CFR 

91.403(c). For airplanes that have been 

previously modified, altered, or repaired in 

the areas addressed by these inspections, the 

operator may not be able to accomplish the 

inspections described in the revisions. In this 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
17088 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64 / Monday, April 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), 

the operator must request approval for an 

alternative method of compliance according 

to paragraph (l) of this AD. The request 

should include a description of changes to 

the required inspections that will ensure the 

continued operational safety of the airplane. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 21: Air conditioning. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

Three cases of in-flight loss of cabin 

pressurization have been reported, resulting 

from failure of a bulkhead check valve in 

combination with failure of an air supply 

duct. 

In addition to mandating inspection, 

rework and/or replacement of the air supply 

ducts, Airworthiness Directive (AD) CF– 

2003–05 (subsequently revised to CF–2003– 

05R1) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2004– 

22–08] mandated the incorporation of a 4,000 

flight-hour repetitive inspection task for 

bulkhead check valves, Part Numbers (P/N) 

92E20–3 and 92E20–4, into the approved 

maintenance schedule. However, this 

repetitive inspection task has since been 

superseded by a 3000 flight-hour periodic 

discard task for these bulkhead check valves. 

This directive mandates revision of the 

approved maintenance schedule to 

incorporate the discard task for bulkhead 

check valves, P/N 92E20–3 and 92E20–4, and 

supersedes the instructions in Corrective 

Actions, Part A, of AD CF–2003–05R1, dated 

7 February 2006. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2004– 

22–08 

Service Information Clarifications 

(g) Paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of 

this AD pertain to the service information 

referenced in this AD. 

(1) Although Bombardier Alert Service 

Bulletin A601R–21–053, Revision ‘A,’ dated 

January 28, 2003; and Bombardier Alert 

Service Bulletin A601R–21–054, dated 

November 8, 2001; specify to submit certain 

information to the manufacturer, this AD 

does not include such a requirement. 

(2) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 

A601R–21–054, dated November 8, 2001, 

recommends sending all damaged check 

valves to the manufacturer for analysis; 

however, this AD does not include that 

requirement. 

(3) Accomplishment of the actions 

specified in Bombardier Alert Service 

Bulletin A601R–21–053, dated November 8, 

2001, before December 2, 2004 (the effective 

date of AD 2004–22–08), is considered 

acceptable for compliance with the 

applicable actions specified in this AD. 

Repetitive Inspections/Related Corrective 

Actions 

(h) Within 500 flight hours after December 

2, 2004: Do the detailed inspections and 

related corrective actions required by 

paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, per 

the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R– 

21–053, Revision ‘A,’ dated January 28, 2003; 

and Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 

A601R–21–054, dated November 8, 2001; as 

applicable. 

(1) For airplanes having bulkhead check 

valves with part number (P/N) 92E20–3/–4, 

as identified in Bombardier Alert Service 

Bulletin A601R–21–054, dated November 8, 

2001: Inspect the left- and right-hand 

bulkhead check valves for damage (cracking, 

breakage). If any damage is found, before 

further flight, replace the damaged valve. 

Repeat the inspection at intervals not to 

exceed 4,000 flight hours until the 

replacement required by paragraph (j) of this 

AD is done. 

(2) For airplanes having serial numbers 

7003 through 7067 inclusive, and 7069 

through 7477 inclusive: Inspect the left- and 

right-hand air supply ducts of the rear 

bulkhead for damage (tearing, delamination, 

or cracking). If any damage is found, before 

further flight, either rework or replace the 

damaged air supply duct, which ends the 

inspections for that air supply duct only. If 

no damage is found, repeat the inspection 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight 

hours until accomplishment of paragraph (i) 

of this AD. 

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is defined as: ‘‘An 

intensive visual examination of a specific 

structural area, system, installation, or 

assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by 

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, 

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate access procedures 

may be required.’’ 

Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections 

of Air Supply Ducts 

(i) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) 

of this AD, for airplanes having serial 

numbers 7003 through 7067 inclusive, and 

7069 through 7477 inclusive: Within 5,000 

flight hours after December 2, 2004, either 

rework or replace the left- and right-hand air 

ducts, as applicable, per the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service 

Bulletin A601R–21–053, Revision ‘A,’ dated 

January 28, 2003; and Bombardier Alert 

Service Bulletin A601R–21–054, dated 

November 8, 2001; as applicable. 

Accomplishment of this paragraph ends the 

repetitive inspections required by paragraph 

(h)(2) of this AD. 

New Requirements of This AD 

Actions and Compliance 

(j) For airplanes having serial numbers 

7003 and subsequent: Within 60 days after 

the effective date of this AD, revise the 

Airworthiness Limitations section of the 

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to 

include the information in Bombardier 

Temporary Revision (TR) 1–2–39, dated 

December 12, 2008, to Section 2—Systems 

and Powerplant Program, Part 1 of the 

Bombardier CL–600–2B19 Maintenance 

Requirement Manual (MRM) CSP–053. This 

task requires replacement of the bulkhead 

check valves having P/N 92E20–3 or 92E20– 

4 at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight hours. 

Operate the airplane thereafter according to 

the limitations and procedures in the TR. 

(k) Thereafter, except as provided in 

paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative 

replacement times or structural inspection 

intervals may be approved for this bulkhead 

check valve. 

Note 3: The actions required by paragraph 

(j) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy 

of Bombardier TR 1–2–39, dated December 

12, 2008, into the MRM, which introduces 

Task 21–51–21–13. When Bombardier Task 

21–51–21–13 has been included in general 

revisions of the MRM, the general revisions 

may be inserted into the MRM, provided the 

relevant information in the general revision 

is identical to that in the TR. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 4: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(l) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, ANE–170, FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: 

Program Manager, Continuing Operational 

Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York, 

11590; telephone 516–7300; fax 516–794– 

5531. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(m) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness 

Directive CF–2009–31, dated July 8, 2009; 

and Bombardier TR 1–2–39, dated December 

12, 2008, to Section 2—Systems and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64 / Monday, April 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 17089 

1 16 CFR Part 312. 

2See 16 CFR Part 312.10; 64 FR at 59906-59908, 

59915. 

3See 71 FR 13247 (Mar. 15, 2006). 

Powerplant Program, Part 1 of the 

Bombardier CL–600–2B19 MRM CSP–053; 

for related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

19, 2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6850 Filed 4–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 312 

Request for Public Comment on the 

Federal Trade Commission’s 

Implementation of the Children’s 

Online Privacy Protection Rule 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

requests public comment on its 

implementation of the Children’s 

Online Privacy Protection Act (‘‘COPPA’’ 

or ‘‘the Act’’), through the Children’s 

Online Privacy Protection Rule 

(‘‘COPPA Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’),. The 

Commission requests comment on the 

costs and benefits of the Rule, as well 

as on whether it, or certain sections, 

should be retained, eliminated, or 

modified. All interested persons are 

hereby given notice of the opportunity 

to submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the Rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by June 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form, by 

following the instructions in the 

Invitation To Comment part of the 

‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION’’ section 

below. Comments in electronic form 

should be submitted by using the 

following weblink: (https:// 

public.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

2010copparulereview) (and following 

the instructions on the web-based form). 

Comments in paper form should be 

mailed or delivered to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 

(Annex E), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326- 

2252. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Phyllis Marcus, (202) 326-2854, or 

Mamie Kresses, (202) 326-2070, 

Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, 

Division of Advertising Practices, 

Federal Trade Commission, 

Washington, D.C. 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Section I. Background 

The COPPA Rule, issued pursuant to 

the Children’s Online Privacy Protection 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6501, et seq., became 

effective on April 21, 2000. The Rule 

imposes certain requirements on 

operators of websites or online services 

directed to children under 13 years of 

age, and on operators of other websites 

or online services that have actual 

knowledge that they are collecting 

personal information online from a 

child under 13 years of age (collectively, 

‘‘operators’’).1 Among other things, the 

Rule requires that operators provide 

notice to parents and obtain verifiable 

parental consent prior to collecting, 

using, or disclosing personal 

information from children under 13 

years of age. The Rule also requires 

operators to keep secure the information 

they collect from children and prohibits 

them from conditioning children’s 

participation in activities on the 

collection of more personal information 

than is reasonably necessary to 

participate in such activities. Further, 

the Rule contains a ‘‘safe harbor’’ 

provision enabling industry groups or 

others to submit to the Commission for 

approval self-regulatory guidelines that 

would implement the Rule’s 

protections.2

Section II. Rule Review 

COPPA and § 312.11 of the Rule 

required the Commission to initiate a 

review no later than five years after the 

Rule’s effective date to evaluate the 

Rule’s implementation. The 

Commission commenced this 

mandatory review on April 21, 2005. 

After receiving and considering 

extensive public comment on the Rule, 

the Commission determined in March 

2006 to retain the COPPA Rule without 

change.3 However, the Commission 

believes that changes to the online 

environment over the past five years, 

including but not limited to children’s 

increasing use of mobile technology to 

access the Internet, warrant reexamining 

the Rule at this time. 

In this notice, the Commission poses 

its standard regulatory review questions 

to determine whether the Rule should 

be retained, eliminated, or modified. In 

addition, the Commission identifies 

several areas where public comment 

would be especially useful. First, the 

Commission asks whether the Rule’s 

current definitions are sufficiently clear 

and comprehensive, or whether they 

might warrant modification or 

expansion, consistent with the COPPA 

statute. Among other questions, the 

Commission asks for comment on the 

application of the definition of 

‘‘Internet’’ to mobile communications, 

interactive television, interactive 

gaming, and similar activities. Further, 

the Commission asks whether the Rule’s 

definition of ‘‘personal information’’ 

should be expanded to include other 

items of information that can be 

collected from children online and are 

not currently specified in the Rule, such 

as persistent IP addresses, mobile 

geolocation information, or information 

collected in connection with online 

behavioral advertising. 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on the use of automated systems for 

reviewing children’s web submissions 

(e.g., those that filter out any personally 

identifiable information prior to 

posting). In addition, the Commission 

asks whether change is warranted as to 

the Rule provisions on protecting the 

confidentiality and security of personal 

information, the right of parents to 

review or delete personal information, 

and the prohibition against conditioning 

a child’s participation on the collection 

of personal information. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment about its 

role in administering the Rule’s safe 

harbor provisions. 

Section III. Questions Regarding the 

COPPA Rule 

The Commission invites members of 

the public to comment on any issues or 

concerns they believe are relevant or 

appropriate to the Commission’s review 

of the COPPA Rule, and to submit 

written data, views, facts, and 

arguments addressing the Rule. All 

comments should be filed as prescribed 

in the Invitation To Comment part of the 

‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION’’ section 

below, and must be received by June 30, 

2010. The Commission is particularly 

interested in comments addressing the 

following questions: 

A. General Questions for Comment 

1. Is there a continuing need for the 

Rule as currently promulgated? Why or 

why not? 

a. Since the Rule was issued, have 

changes in technology, industry, or 

economic conditions affected the need 

for or effectiveness of the Rule? 

b. What are the aggregate costs and 

benefits of the Rule? 

c. Does the Rule include any 

provisions not mandated by the Act that 

are unnecessary or whose costs 

outweigh their benefits? If so, which 

ones and why? 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS